Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-04-18

and who will vote no one knows how but
themselves.
Knowing the interest felt in the Ques-
ton, a GAZETTE man has been interview
ing citizens on the subject, in order to
elicit drift Of thought Tor the edifcatiOn
of its readers. Meeting one of the bright
est lawyers in the city he was asked:
CHOW are you on prohibition"
''Not for the paper?" said he.
'Oh, no; of course not"
"Wen, sir, | am in favor of it,
CHOW 90 you argue yourself into that
( resolved"
81 SETTLE 1t to my satisfaction by dis
cussing il as a police regulation"
''Does that cover all? Do you favor it
because, as a police regulation, all Objec-
lions are removed from your mind?"
eyes, sir; favor it as a police regula-
ton"
Running up on an estima5Ie gentle
man, the question was put: CHOW are
you on prOhibition?"
81 am for it."
"Why gre you for it,"
because I believe it TO be right"
| "You belong to the -- church; do
you believe irright to belong to a church,"
"Of course, or | wouldn't be in one"
"WouId you vote to compel men to Join
the - church,"
"No."
"WouId you vote to compel men to join
| some church,"
eyes"
Thrusting an arm into that Of one of
the most level-headed thinkers in the city,
THE GAZETTE man pleaded: CHOW, tell
me, won't you, how you stand on prohI-
bitiou?"
"Oh, don't want TO be quoted IN the
papers"
81 am hunting reasons for the faith that
is in men, and have no intention of print
ing names"
"WelI, then. if any one had told me q
year ago [ would vote for prohibition l
should have felt that my mental health
was question ed"
''But now do you teel now"
"Don't be in q hurry. As 1 say, year
ago | should have considered any man
crank who gave the question of prohibit
ton as much serious thought as l have
devoted to it during the last two weeks.
Now, do not know, but l may vote for
it,
"But isn't prohibition an invasion of
personal liberty, and may it not be fuel to
the flame which in these days occasionally
threatens to consume us?H
sit is no more such invasion than many
other restrictions against which there is
no cutlery. And If we are going to the
devil, governmentally, we will go no
more surely because of prohibition, and
with it we should at least go soberly."
"But they say prohibition doesn't pro-
hibit"
"Then why do they oppose it?"
"On principle"
"Principle-tbe devil! There Is no
principle that will stay the hands of q
majority. Might does not make but
serves for right, We have yielded so
much to the principle you talk of that
we ought not TO lose time in its mention;
and this violation Of it, if it is one, will be
in the interest of morality, economy and
business"
Chow do you get at all that?"
"WetI, you know it will close the ea
looms, with their lewd pictures, dominoes
and music, and will put an end to wine
rooms Of variety theaters-there's your
morality. The costs arising from trials
of offenses due to whisky will eX-
coed the revenue derived from Ii
censes-there's your economy, The
money spent for whisky and beer finds its
way to the alien distiller and brewer
through very few hands, viz: the retail
and wholesale dealers in liquors; if this
money cannot be put out IN this way, it
will go to merchants in every line of
trade; some of it for articles manufaC-
tured here or il the state-and there's the
business"
with all these reasons for voting aye,
why do you say you may vo5e for it, and
that you don't know?"
because don't"
sis it of any use to argue with you the
principle involved?"
81 have said all want to SaI on the
subject"
"What do you think of prohibition and
Democracy" asked THE GAZETTE of q
young Democrat who likes to be in con-
venti0n fights.
81 am opposed to prohibition as Dem
OCrat, but as Democrat | don't see
WheIe' the growth Of the prohibition
party, as distinctive political orgsniza-
ton, ever hurt the Democratic party. But
for the prohibition party, Blaine would
now be in Cieveland's place. 1t was the
prohibition vote in New York that gave
the state to Cleveland, and If | could
overcome my objection to voting for
measure which, in my opinion, is I'M
Democratic in principle, would think it
wise TO strengthen the prohibition party
by carrying this amendment in Texas.
Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylva-
MIA, Illinois and Wisconsin are fine fields
for the display of prohibition strength, so
far as Democratic party success is
concerned, and if / considered
prohibition simply as affecting the
success of the Democratic party